One anomaly here and there does not a predominant viewpoint or opinion make...

Who are you to say that the vast majority of black people are being bamboozled? Isn't that a bit arrogant on your part? You're not one, so how do you know about the issues that confront us let alone appreciate them.

Can you read the OP without assuming I said something other than I actually did?

"Pastor Scott realizes the media's brainwashing on American's to paint Donald Trump as a racist."

He happens to be a man of God that I admire, and the Holy Spirit bore witness with my spirit that what Pastor Scott said about Trump is true. I respect him, and, ... Donald Trump was meant for such a time as this. They have know each other for 45 years.

No hidden agendas or subliminal messages.

Added: What is an "AA minister"? Doctor Darrell Scott is the pastor of New Spirit Revival Center Ministries.

Well, regardless of what Pastor Scott says, you only support him because he supports Trump. This is hardly conclusive in regards to the truth, however.If he wasn't supportive of Trump, would you admire and respect so much?

Ok, all is well, but you will allow me to remain suspicious of Trump new found love for this black minister.

I guess like most GOP, the idea of trotting out a black token or two will encourage greater than 4-12 percent of the black vote that over the last 30 years, with the exception of those running against Obama, the party received in national elections?

I get offended as many conservative groups here seem to say that contrary to the vast majority of us, they know best.

You don't have to be black to understand black issues, but the people who are in the best position to be aware of these things can't be reasonbly discounted by every one of our adversaries. We, as black people, are in the best position to be aware of affairs directly affecting us. Who dares to say otherwise?

Why do you think that Colorfulone went to the trouble to identify this pastor as a Trump supporter? It was not out of the blue, do you think that a point was being made?

Colorfulone's support of Trump is without equal, in line with that, she said that the mainstream media has distorted Trump's record falsely accusing him of being a racist. Is the photo of Trump cozying with the minister supposed to have us all believe otherwise?

Obviously a point is being made. That point has nothing to do with black people being "discounted by every one of [your] adversaries" or that "conservative groups know best." How did you get that from a video of a black pastor sharing his experiences with Trump?

Colorfulone stated that the media was biased in saying that Donald Trump is was guilty of racism through his actions and statements. This contradicts the preponderance of evidence as observed by the more prominent and by predominant numbers within our community.

Conservatives as a group here have a modus operandi that the media is biased against them and the African-Americans have been caught in the deception, i.e. (Democratic Plantation) That assumes that we are not smart enough to interpret words and events from competing candidates and come to our conclusions, just like everyone else. Who does this: Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.

So what the photo says is that because there is one black minister that supports Trump, it opens the possibility that the opinion of the vast majority of the Black community regarding Trump is incorrect. That is a reasonable explanation as to why Colorfulone posted in the first place, yes? So based on this flimsy of flimsy evidence, conservatives know best, as it is the conservatives that are promoting Trump. Well, if that is true, it is going to take far more evidence than trotting out some obscure minister from behind some corner.

I still don't understand how you're jumping to those conclusions. There's two possibilities: either Trump is racist, or Trump is not racist. Being wrong about this doesn't mean you aren't smart or you can't come to your own conclusions. Even the smartest groups and individuals can be deceived by propaganda.

Why don't you just prove that Donald Trump is racist? Since there's a preponderance of evidence it should be easy to do so.

With your oracle attitude, you would have questions about Trump being a racist even if he were burning crosses and wearing Klan bedsheets. O course David Duke and the hard right are going to say Trump is not racist, and why would you think that they would do that?

Why don't you do some legwork for a change and present evidence that he is not racist, He has been accused to race based attacks across the political spectrum, so why are you giving credibility to some fringe element without evidence, inspite of his being accused of this by prominent members of even his own party?

But, I will start, Trump actively was involved in housing discrimation against black people in the properties he owned in New York in defiance of Fair Housing Laws, during the 1970's and 80's, do I need to look it up and document it?

It fascinates me how many racist statements the guy can make and people still claim he isn't a racist. I suppose we can just say that since he claims he isn't racist then all the statements made don't count. That happens all the time. Bill Clinton's 'I did not have sex with that woman'. Hillary Clinton's 'We didn't lose a single person in Libya'. The list is endless. Trump, like all other politicians, gets to speak out of both sides of his mouth and those who like him listen to one side, those who don't the other.

you're funny Credence, I'll give you that. Weird science oracle is a new one. I'm curious what part of my statements is "weird" science to you. I'm also curious why an oracle (with presumably divine knowledge) would have any questions about Trump's racism.

You think me questioning Trump's racism is equivalent to questioning the KKK's racism? I'd take offense at that accusation if it weren't so braindead. You seem to know a lot about my "attitudes" though, better than even me. Conservatives know best, nay, Credence knows best. And here I thought I was the oracle.

Anyway, why are you talking about the KKK, David Duke and the hard right? I'm asking for evidence that demonstrates that Trump is a racist, not of evidence that David Duke has a favourable opinion of Trump. He is not a part of this discussion.

Do legwork for a change? Another odd accusation. I've done plenty of legwork in my discussions with you, most of which has fallen on deaf ears. While I've demonstrated my willingness to do so, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate Trump's racism, not on me to demonstrate his non-racism. How could anyone prove that a person is not a racist? How could anyone prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? The only proof I have is evidence of absence i.e. there's no evidence of Bigfoot, therefore he doesn't exist. But that might just be my "weird" science talking.

I've witnessed enough accusations by politicians and media to give the impression of consensus, as if that is enough to establish truth. Sorry, but appeals to majority don't establish truth.

And yes, you do need to look it up and document Trumps "active" involvement. I'd love to see this. As a CEO, did he give directives to his renters and landlords to actively discriminate against blacks?

It wasn't any trouble at all to post this...it is something that has been on heart to do since I heard Pastor Scott speak for the first time at the Trump rally. He so impressed me that I spend time praying for him and his ministry.

"Colorfulone's support of Trump is without equal"

That is a nice sounding compliment, but it would not be true. Trump has supporters that I pail to greatly!

"she said that the mainstream media has distorted Trump's record falsely accusing him of being a racist."

In the OP, I wrote..."Pastor Scott realizes the media's brainwashing on American's to paint Donald Trump as a racist."

"Is the photo of Trump cozying with the minister supposed to have us all believe otherwise?"

I like to let people believe what they want, until they think something else. I have been that way as long as I can remember...it works for me.

I think Fraakham is an intelligent man from what he had to say in agreement with Trump. However, Fraakham, is a racist, so I do not have any respect for the man. He advocates killing white people, tyrants in government...he believes in the Quran and that is what he teaches, VIOLENCE! I think he actually believes what he says.

The difference between Pastor Darrell Scott and Louis Fraakham is: light and darkness. Or, God and the devil! ... Farrakhan says about Hillary Clinton: 'That's a Wicked Woman". He has even invoked 'Satan' as He unleashed on Hillary Clinton.

You have to understand , we all realize that ethnicity soon is to be about equal in births inside the US .Fraakham realizes that if Muslims are allowed to overrun America ,No more Affirmative Action , No longer is the Black community a minority , We all are minorities equally .........:]

I hadn't thought of that. I know that different sects of Islam are arch enemies. They historically have been killing each other in the Middle East forever. I was thinking more in line with fear on Farrakhan's part, but you maybe absolutely correct. Thank you for adding your insight.

With Farrakhan I was refering to the time he reference when Trump told his Jewish audience 'I don't need your money'. Farrakhan believed that he was courageous in 'standing up' to the Jews. You have to read these articles more carefully.

I like that Trump hasn't been bought and isn't going to be a puppet. However, if he becomes president, he will have to make some deals with the Globalists or they will kill him. But, if he has the right VP choice, he or she will be all the protection Trump needs. I hope that would be Jeff Sessions, but only Trump will know who is the right choice.

Uncle Tom's are nothing new in the black community. There were also Orthodox Jews who helped the Nazi's. And so we can understand that being a traitor is not unique to one race. The fact that this man parrot's the perverse phrase "Let's Make America Great Again", confirms that he is very uneducated, or that he is an Oreo who simply doesn't care. I have no respect for such people. Many have spoken this evil phrase that mocks the hundreds of millions who have suffered and died beneath this yoke of racism and oppression, but no one has of yet been able to cite exactly when that time was when America was great. In fact, no one in this Forum can name that time because such a time never existed!

But the callousness of Americans is nothing new. The lyrics to "America The Beautiful" were written in July 1893 by Katherine Bates. In February of the same year the black teenager Henry Smith was tortured, mutilated, and burned alive in front of approx 15,000 white spectators in Paris Texas. Vendors were set up and serving refreshments while Smith screamed in agony as he was being tortured and mutilated for nearly an hour. And when he screamed the crowd of psychopaths would cheer. Just 3 years earlier, over 150 unarmed Lakota men, women , and children were massacred by the 7th Calvary at Wounded Knee South Dakota. Twenty soldiers received the Medal of Honor for this crime against humanity. And this was not the first atrocity committed by the European Invaders against the people. Yet this white woman,who happened to be a school teacher, found beauty amidst the evil of racism, torture, and genocide.

But the list of atrocities and crimes against humanity is very long, and it includes the invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian government, the forced removal of Chagossians from Diego Garcia, and of course the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And most recently the destabilization of the Middle East by imperialist profiteers in the American government. Men like this pastor are a greater threat to the black race than white supremacists. But unlike another pastor, the great Martin Luther King, this man will most likely live to be very old.

WB, the horrors of history are in the making, the UN's open borders, bringing people into America with diseases, to collapse the country, and admits it is the plan, then tells us it isn't happening when we have video. Well guess what, its all over the news admitting its going on. We have to care about other people but not want to be run over, and do our own research. Being a leader is something we should get involved in because we don't want to be the slaves, in my humble view. We need leaders to stand up and take action. I don't want to be some brand of sheep that sells my family out when I know something is run by bad people.

I'm a self-preservationist, a protectionist patriot and I am not just going to get run over. I'm willing to die because I am alive. Humanity is going to go on and succeed if we are like our ancestors and not lay down without a fight. That's called civilization. Good will, and being informed.

The true leader of Europe can now rise up! The sun has risen on an independent and United Kingdom because 17million people voted for Brexit, against the big merchant banks, against the big businesses, and against big politics. In the face of all the threats, the people had the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

Donald Trump has not once mentioned "The Patriot Act", or Executive Order 13603. These are dangerous and un-constitutional laws that threaten every American citizen. These evil laws that remain unchallenged pose a far greater threat than so-called illegal immigrants or the imaginary Islamic Terrorist bogeyman. Trump "is" the system. The change you are looking for will not come from his direction. But he will entertain you and continue to make good headlines.

I take offense to you calling a black preacher, who has an opinion different from what many others have as 'an uncle tom'. How racist is that?

Actually, after reading the rest of your post I had to laugh. Pretty hard. A Brit calling us out for atrocities. How about Africa? You guys just, finally, allowed a man to have his day in court concerning when he was tortured, by the Brits, for being nothing more than an indigenous native. How about Ireland?

And, so you know (since you appear to have no grasp of history) Europe is responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East. We are just part of the world now dealing with the aftermath.

Uncle Tom, comparison with Nazi regime, Oreo, list of historical human atrocities, pastors being a greater threat than race supremacists. It's got a bit of everything. All from one black pastor vouching Trump and saying "let's make America great again."

If you are so easily offended then I suggest that you invest in a thicker skin. If a black man ignores the historical record and jumps on the "Let's Make America Great Again" bandwagon, then what is he but an Uncle Tom? What would you call an Orthodox Jew who supports neo-Nazi's and chants slogans like "Let's Make The National Socialist Party Great Again?

Yes, that would seem rather odd wouldn't it. But the black man in America is not expected to have a "black' identity. The black man in America is expected to be the "good hard working Negro". He is expected to remain branded with a slave name like "Jones","Washington",or "Smith". He is expected to speak the white man's language and attend "integrated" schools where he can learn the Eurocentric version of history, and climb the ladder of success as defined by the white man. This is why you are offended. It is because I have challenged the stereotypical "good Negro" who supports a Capitalist who is as much a part of the system, and part of the problem, as anyone else.

And I do believe you have me confused with someone else. I am not a Brit. In fact I have never been to Europe. I am Aniyunwiya/German and I grew up near the Mason Dixon line. My parents were Civil Rights activists during the late 50's and 60's. And so my education about America and racism began at a very young age.In fact, it was so racist where I grew up that my parents were involved in several gun battles with white supremacists. And so, much of what I know about the evil of America I have learned firsthand, and not out of a book.

To suggest that someone who has been an activist against racism his entire life is also a racist is absurd. It appears you have been bitten by the PC bug. And what should I call Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy? If I call them rapists and murderers, does it reveal that I am an insensitive bigot? No, there is nothing racist about calling someone an Uncle Tom who actually fits the description. And if for no other reason, he earned the title when he parroted the phrase,"Let's Make America Great Again". And so I will ask you: From the perspective of the African in America, The Indigenous First Nations, other minorities, the white working class, poor whites, or white women, when was America ever "Great". No one has of yet answered this question. Not even Donald Trump!

As far as Europe is concerned, many are not aware that the United States has remained a British Colony since the Revolutionary War. And so, it is not possible to separate the Imperialist aggression of the United States from the global machinations of Great Britain.

I have no love for Trump, but if forced to make a choice I would vote Trump over Hillary in a heartbeat! Trump has proven that he is a narcissistic capitalist, but Hillary has proven that she is pure evil. What happened in Benghazi: she owns it.

I don't think that has been proven, at least not to me and I am keen on those thing, being skeptical. I think he has a big ego at times, but I also see the love he has for America and his humble spirit around clergy.

I will never forget Benghazi. 13 Hours they fought for their lives, waiting for help to arrive. There was a plane full of Special Forces 20 minutes away, but they got the stand-down order according to one of their top fighters, UFC Tim Kennedy.

If a black man ignores your take on history, has his own take on history and chooses to support a candidate that you don't then,no, he isn't an uncle tom. Again, that is racist to think you have the right to decide what another person should think simply because of his skin color.

Edit. Forgot to tell you Sorry about the Brits comment earlier. I had you mixed up with Footballnut and thought you were British. You are from WV. Correct?

A man who fits the definition of a traitor is most likely a traitor. Uncle Tom is simply slang for "traitor". You cannot deny that he said in the video, "Let's Make America Great Again", and when he did so he defined himself. My opinion, or his opinion, or your opinion, has nothing to do with it. There has been no time in the history of America, since 1492, when the Indigenous or African have not been collectively oppressed under colonialist rule. The historical record verifies this. And so, his pandering to white mainstream America by making such a statement is a denial of over 500 years of white racist oppression. He is playing the "good Negro" and of course many white Americans love this kind of freak show. To the educated mind, regardless of race, it is a disgusting display of ignorance.

Neither is he a man of God as he claims. He is a hypocrite, as we can understand that the evil rise of America and materialism is directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not condone rape, theft, murder,materialism, or genocide. Yet, it is upon these elements of evil that the foundations of America were laid. But instead of rebuking evil, this man has embraced a legacy of evil. So yes, this man has defined himself as an Uncle Tom, as well as a hypocrite.

You could have simply looked, to verify, that you understood the definition of 'uncle tom'. Here it is

a black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile.

This is not the definition of traitor. Just because you don't agree with someone there is no reason to apply racist names to them.

I will say that what little I know of the guy and what little I know of you from your posts; he, at the least, isn't filled with hatred and an overwhelming need to play the victim. I suppose that is 'uncle tomish' to you also.

Yes, I am filled with hatred for evil. When I see women and children living in the squalor of refugee camps I am filled with hatred for the evil that led them there. When I see innocent unarmed citizens (white and black) being gunned down and murdered by miscreant cops, I am filled with hatred for a system that allows a majority of these thugs to kill with impunity. When I see working class people struggling for a lifetime in a system of oppression that was designed to keep them in perpetual servitude, I am filled with hatred for those who champion the lie of freedom and democracy to a nation of wage slaves. And yes, I am filled with hatred for those who make apologies for crimes against humanity while they reap the benefit, and enjoy the fruits of evil.

Hate is like pain. It can be a positive or a negative. In the human body, pain is good because it alerts us to a problem and keeps us healthy. But if we inflict pain on someone just to hurt them, and hear them cry out, then that can only be defined as an evil act. Hate functions in the same way. By hating evil we are recognizing a problem. And the first step in fixing any problem is to recognize that it even exists. When I comment about certain issues in these Forums, like a nerve in the human body, I am alerting the community that there is a problem. When I offer, or implement a solution, I am behaving as an antibody in the bloodstream.

Even Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." When we consider Jesus and his teachings, we can clearly understand that Jesus has no love for America overall, as it is the embodiment of evil.

And as far as "forgiveness" is concerned. Forgiving an individual,entity, or government does not mean that you encourage, enable, or allow any of the aforementioned to continue committing crimes against humanity, or to continue glorifying their evil deeds with monuments,holidays, and patriotic songs. You have used a common tactic of trying to turn the tables and paint me as a hateful person in order to steal my thunder,to tarnish my character, and to dilute my message. But the only thing that can stop me is a bullet. And then that would only be temporary, as this is not my first rodeo.

That's funny. And so, because I haven't revealed every aspect of my life; because I have not posted every thought, every action, every dream, every success, and every failure, online for the world to see, then you assume that you know all there is to know about me, and because I have responded to you throughout the day, you assume that my life consists of nothing more than typing words into a computer.My, My, My! How much did you pay for your crystal ball, as I would like to purchase one for myself.

Based on your previous commentary, and your scathing remarks about my worthless life, it appears that you are living in an insular world. I do not have your crystal ball, and so I have no idea if you are a man, a woman, a housewife, a teacher, a rich business executive, or a preacher. I don't know if you are living in a high rise apartment building, upon a beautiful estate in El Cajon, or if you have been shut away in a nursing home because your family is too busy to watch you grow old. But I do know the most important thing I need to know about you. I know if you are a member of the working class living here in the United States that you have been used and abused by the U.S. government your entire life. I know that your inheritance was stolen before the day you were born. And I also know if you were born after 1936, that you were branded with a number and transformed from a human being into a commodity. Whether you are aware of these things or not, this is the evil that has been perpetrated against you and your family; the people you know and the people that you love.

I will give you one example of how insidious this evil really is. Most everyone who reads this either owns a home or rents property.Most everyone accepts the concept of a mortgage and the prescribed path to home ownership. But what the people have accepted is an evil lie that has helped to keep them chained to a wheel of servitude that only continues to enrich a ruling elite. I do not have time for a long explanation, but for now, suffice it to say, you have all been working and slaving to pay a 20-30 year mortgage on property that you already own! The land is your birthright! The land is like the air and the water. These things are your inheritance. These are the necessities of life that were provided for us by God.

No man has the right to put a tax on the air that I breathe. No man has the right, or the moral authority to put a price on the water that I must drink to survive. And neither does any man have the right to put a price on the land that `he did not create, but what God created for us all! What man do you know who created even one inch of this Earth? And if he did not create it, then he can only claim ownership as a robber, or a thief. We are stewards in the Earth. There is enough land in this Earth to provide every man, woman, and child with a beautiful home.But if this came to pass, then their would be no distinction between the very rich and the very poor, as both classes would no longer exist. And this is why the evil concept of Real Estate is being used as a weapon against the people, so that the greedy rich can retain power and control. This is just one example of the evil that exists here in America and throughout the world. And if hating so much evil is simply too much for you to bear, then be of good cheer, for you do not have to. I,and many others others like me, will gladly hate this evil system for you. And one day, according to many religious texts, this evil will be sent back to the hell from whence it came.

I cannot understand how my fellow humans could (can still...) look on while a person is deliberately subject to pain, torture and death... supposedly to appease an imaginary god in the sky.That picture should cause any "believer," of any religious belief, to question deeply what they stand for and what is only fit for rejection.(PS) The whole idea that we must regard ourselves as sinful and therefore in need of purging by "God" before we can enter an equally theoretical "heaven," is a man-made tool for controlling other humans. When, oh when, will we climb out of this childish, nonsensical superstition?

Most likely they are not your fellow humans. Hillary Clinton is more reptilian in nature, as she has demonstrated a lack of human emotion. Anyone who cannot see this reptilian character in the video where she laughs about the torture of Gadhafi is either blind or of the same character. It does not matter that some may consider that he was a tyrant. When I step on a bug I feel remorse, and I try to avoid doing so. There is a reptilian breed of man, a human breed , and a breed that is more human than human. I am of the latter category, although this has been a lifetime progression, and I did not begin at this level. There was a time when my only concerns were selfish concerns: material pursuits and copulating with human females; a base instinct that many become addicted to. But thankfully I did not have to remain in such a horrid state. of mind, body, and soul.

The way the City of Cleveland was setting up things, its like they were asking for violent protesters to wage a war against peaceful Trump supporters who are going to protest for our 1st Amendment rights for free speech.

Pastor Scott gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. I felt the fire of God when I listened to him speaking the Word of Truth that Almighty God gave him to speak, and not one single word more.

I believe, Pastor Scott, may be the next Martin Luther King Jr. By that I mean of the same Spirit to unite people with power and authority. I'm sure he knows he is putting his life on the line just as King knew. May God protect Pastor Scott and his family all the days of their lives as they do the will of God.

That "God" is merely another name for American Culture. It has no more substance than that.

You live in a world of make-believe. A Hollywood style of aggrandizement, that likes to lift and bolster an object or a personality with superlative characteristics. Then, when life gets a bit boring, throw mud pies at the personality and shame them. Makes good TV footage, but destroys the one they set up in the first place.

"I am a child of the stars. My religion, like the clothes I wear will one day belong to the dust of the centuries. My spirit is immortal and belongs to the universe. Our sons and daughters are the princes and princesses of an eternal kingdom. They inherit the riches and resources of this planet for a span, until they continue their journey through time and space."Reverend Ted Noffs 1926-1995 http://www.tednoffs.org/

For me, the above quote says it all. Ted inspired me the very first time he administered the Bread and Wine to me. He was an authentic Christian person.

One man's misguided speech doesn't serve at all to disprove the faults of another person. If that were the case, then Hitler wasn't racist or prejudiced because of his salute of Jesse Owens, nor was he anti-religious. (As we all know, between 25 and 50,000 Afro-Germans were ordered to be killed during the Holocaust, and he utilized the German Church to cover up Nazi operations). You can't fix something broken by simply declaring it fixed. This topic offers no valid basis for effective discussion whatsoever, and really should be revised or removed entirely.

Welcome to HubPages, Sir..... but..... if that is the best you can do within 6 hours of joining, I would hope that you will give us something more to discuss, without a prejudicial stance.

To understand that post of mine, you would need to read back through the thread. You can do that by clicking on Threaded instead of Chronological.

Also, there is considerable freedom within HubPages to speak our minds on any subject, provided it abides by the rules. Just because you happen not to agree with my post or its content, doesn't automatically warrant its removal or revision.

Nonsense | Definition of Nonsense by Merriam-WebsterWords or ideas that are foolish or untrue. : behavior that is silly, annoying, or unkind.

You posted that Michelle Obama is a man and Barack Obama is gay. More than once. And you think you know truth through God. That's just a tiny sample of the crazy beliefs you promulgate here.

But, you are representative of a highly misinformed segment of the population that, unfortunately for the rest of us, gets to vote. I defend your right to promulgate your nonsense, and I exercise my right to laugh at it.

#4 – In 2005 Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” She also, as a Senator, voted to construct a wall between the US and Mexico. Considering the main “proof” of Trump’s racism is that he opposes illegal immigration and wants to build a wall, isn’t it odd that Hillary gets off for having said the same thing?

That's silly. However, when you do as Trump did and claim they are all rapists and drug dealers then you have racism involved. It isn't so much being against illegal immigration. Trump gives the impression that even legal immigration is frowned upon. That he has a problem with all people from that area. Not just those sneaking across the borders.

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people"

I don't see where he's saying or implying "all" of anything, and the last sentence rules out that possibility entirely.

He might be implying that most or a significant number of the not-best Mexican immigrants aren't good people. Is it racist to claim that the not-best of a given group are criminals?

(I don't know if that claim is true, by the way. I just don't see how it's racist.)

Well, if you don't see that as racist we are at an impasse. It is implying that the vast majority of Mexicans are felons,or potential ones. 'And some, I assume'. That really is the kicker, for me. Here we have a token attempt to make this sound less racist. As if he is attempting, at great cost, to give the benefit of the doubt to a limited number when the vast majority of those who come across our southern border are hard working people looking for a better life.

The reason so many people are crossing the Mexican border is because of immigration from Central America. Mexico is able to pay lower wages to the immigrants, and it is forcing the Mexican citizens out of work or working for wages that they cannot live on.

Hillary and Trump both explained how it is the Mexican government that is causing the illegal immigration problem, and why we need a secure border. But, of course Hillary has done a 180.

So, we get illegal immigrants who will work for lower wages in the USA, and its hurting American workers by driving down wages, and putting Americans out of work.

ADDED: Labor / Immigration has caused the same problem in the UK, thus Brexit Exit.

I think you are missing the point here. Of course we need secure borders so that we can control the movement of people into our country and have a fair and equitable immigration policy. If we left it at just that there would be no discussion about racism. But, when you make statements such as the ones Trump makes then you have to wonder what truly motivates the desire for a wall. Is it motivated by a desire to ensure we address problems such as the ones you mentioned or is it to keep the 'dirty mexican drug dealers and rapists' out. Can you see how one is fair and equitable and one is unfairly characterizing an entire people?

We have to ensure that our motivations are the right ones when moving forward with policy because if we back someone who is racist, because we think he will address real problems then we may end up with a racist who does a whole lot more than that. A whole lot we would regret as a decent people.

Trump is not a racist. He isn't politically correct, so the opposition and media blows things out of proportion, twists the facts. If anyone is a racist it is Hillary Clinton and the many bloopers she has made, her and Bill are apologists for the former KKK grand dragon, Byrd. If you start beating that drum, then I will believe that you have not been influenced by propaganda, and lack of real reporting. You are a smart cookie, I have faith in you that you will figure it out for yourself.

Our economy, and the illegal immigration problem is a far greater problem to America. That I do not trust to Globalist Hitlary Clinton, racist or not.

I've made no bones about the fact that I don't trust Hillary to do anything which is in the best interest of the country; if that action is in direct odds with what is in her best interest.

Byrd? I'm sure they would work to downplay his racism.

I won't call a spade a spade at one point and then declare it to be a heart at another. Trump,by his words and by his actions,fits the definition of racist by my definition. Yours may be different. But, the conversation was about Trump, not Hillary. 'Yeh, but" is not a conversation I am interested in. One racist doesn't make another less of one.

I believe you are rationalizing, it makes no difference to me, but if it somehow gives you a false sense of comfort to believe one way, hey! What difference does it make?

Racism is a part of the discussion, other names have been brought up in conversation including KKK apologist Hitlary Clinton's. She is now apart of the conversation, the comparison between Hillary or Farrakhan, and Donald Trump and Pastor Scott is black and white.

He's saying a majority (or some significant quantity) of Mexicans being sent illegally are felons. I don't know why you're equating that to all or a majority of Mexicans overall.

He elaborates to include other countries as well:

"It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast."

His claim is not that all or a majority of Mexicans are felons. His claim is that a majority (or some significant quantity) of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, South America and potentially the Middle East are felons.

What's the common theme here? Are we to conclude that he's being racist against all or a majority of Mexicans, South Americans, Middle Easterners, and any other country whose citizens illegally immigrate to the United States? Or that he's made a blunt and vague claim about how many felons make up the illegal immigrant population?

Really, I'm puzzled. I'd like to get across the impasse, not use it as a cop-out.

We all get to decide, to some extent, what indicators we will use to judge whether we think a politician is "racist." The fact that you are "puzzled" is meaningless. If enough people view Trump's words and behavior as evidence of racism, he will lose their votes or, in some cases, gain their votes. Based on the vast database of Trump tweets, speeches, and interviews, it is not strange for a large number of people to think he is probably racist.

You can accept that or not,but it is silly to argue whether or not he is racist or whether people's opinions of his racism are right or wrong. There is enough body of Trump behavior and words for everyone to decide on their own.

And here you are again, laughing and contributing nothing of substance about the quote in question.

"We all get to decide, to some extent, what indicators we will use to judge whether we think a politician is "racist.""

No kidding. I am suggesting that we err on the side of caution and give people the benefit of the doubt when making such serious accusations. If you have enough evidence of Trump's racism it should be easy to compile a list of his racist behaviour and demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.

"The fact that you are "puzzled" is meaningless."

Meaningless to what? All I'm saying is I don't understand how you came to your conclusion about Trump's racism. I think it's relevant to the discussion, if you care to elucidate me on the matter.

"If enough people view Trump's words and behavior as evidence of racism, he will lose their votes or, in some cases, gain their votes."

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

"Based on the vast database of Trump tweets, speeches, and interviews, it is not strange for a large number of people to think he is probably racist."

Yes, there's such a large database yet I'm the only one that's provided an actual quote of his to try and understand what portion of that quote demonstrates racism. It's incredible, there's so much data and so little of it is provided, let alone analysed.

"You can accept that or not,but it is silly to argue whether or not he is racist or whether people's opinions of his racism are right or wrong. "

it's silly to argue whether something is true or false. We'll agree to disagree on that one.

"There is enough body of Trump behavior and words for everyone to decide on their own."

Yes, and I'm asking you (or anyone else) to provide that overwhelming body of evidence to me so I can update my estimation. Maybe I am not privy to the database that you have. Or maybe you are ill-informed and buying into propaganda.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. There is no right or wrong in this discussion, because you and I are privy to the same database and seem to have arrived at different conclusions. That is what I'm saying. I am quite certain I could list a bunch of quotes, a bunch of behaviors, a bunch of tweets, and you would nitpick every single one to show that Trump has not been "proven" to be racist and we'd continue on that track ad nauseum. Not interested in going there, but maybe someone else will amuse you. One cannot say, conclusively, that Trump is racist. I will agree with you on that. One can say, conclusively, that one believes Trump to be racist based on his large body of statements that point to racism, and one would be rational and justified in doing so.

We can erase these maybes rather easily. In fact, you do so with your very next sentence.

"There is no right or wrong in this discussion"

Yes there is. Either Trump is racist beyond a reasonable doubt, or he is not. I'm sure you wouldn't be singing that tune if Obama or Hillary were accused of racism.

"because you and I are privy to the same database and seem to have arrived at different conclusions."

And here you erase both maybes that I invoked. Both of us are using the same database, thus one of us is making a poor conclusion.

"I am quite certain I could list a bunch of quotes, a bunch of behaviors, a bunch of tweets, and you would nitpick every single one to show that Trump has not been "proven" to be racist and we'd continue on that track ad nauseum."

I am quite certain that if he were really racist beyond a reasonable doubt no amount of "nitpicking" would disprove that notion.

Done, mrpopo. I believe there is no reasonable doubt that Trump is racist. I base my conclusions upon his large body of behavior and statements. You can conclude that my belief that Trump is racist is wrong. You can believe that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion if Hillary, or Bernie, or Obama, or whoever said the exact same things, but I think you'd probably have a reasonable doubt. Maybe, maybe not. LOL

Too much work to provide the evidence of that reasonable doubt, hmm? Yet it's not too much work to accuse him of racism. It's so easy to assume others of ill-intent and then to back down when that claim is challenged.

One minor point of clarification:

"You can believe that I wouldn't come to the same conclusion if Hillary, or Bernie, or Obama, or whoever said the exact same things"

That's not what I meant to imply. What was meant is if someone were to accuse Obama, Hillary or Bernie of racism, you wouldn't be hiding behind "there is no right or wrong in this discussion." You'd challenge such statements with skepticism and ask for evidence.

For instance, Bernie stated that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. It's a false statement, and it's racist to assume that white people are impervious to poverty. Would you conclude that Bernie is racist because of such a statement? Or would you conclude that he is poorly informed, or that he misspoke?

Yes, as I have repeatedly stated, a large body of evidence exists to suggest that Trump is a racist. That is my judgment, as I have previously stated. I could list them all here and you could question my judgment and conclude for yourself that he is not racist, as I have previously stated. We have already gone over this.

I have not seen a similarly large body of evidence that Bernie Sanders is a racist, but if it exists, you could show it to me. I could review it. I would come to one conclusion or another. You could question it or agree.

No, because I have not seen it. I just googled Bernie Sanders is a racist, and found a few articles, but no list of a bunch of quotes, or lawsuits, or policies. I know, you will claim you have not seen the large body of evidence that Trump is a racist. Fine. I think you are not being honest about that, but you can go ahead and believe that I just don't want to go to the trouble. Or that credence doesn't want to go to the trouble. Or that Live to Learn doesn't want to go to the trouble. We all know you know it's out there and are pretending you don't.

We're not stupid. It's just a game you are playing. For some reason, you don't want to admit there is enough evidence for rational people to believe Trump is racist. Keep believing what you want. It's a free country, but don't expect us to buy your bullsh!t.

"I just googled Bernie Sanders is a racist, and found a few articles, but no list of a bunch of quotes, or lawsuits, or policies."

I did the same thing with Trump. Found the same type of articles. The one lawsuit and policy is dating back to 1973 and resulted in a settlement. Aside from that, there are quotes being interpreted in the worst manner possible.

"I think you are not being honest about that"

I think you are not being honest about the preponderance of racism from Bernie Sanders. Again, I'm not going to substantiate such claims, just accept it as truth.

"We all know you know it's out there and are pretending you don't."

We all know you know the racism from Bernie Sanders is out there and are pretending you don't.

"It's just a game you are playing."

You can go ahead and believe whatever you want. If you don't want to provide evidence, then don't. You don't need to respond to me repeatedly telling me that you don't want to do something that you've already made clear you are not going to do.

"For some reason, you don't want to admit there is enough evidence for rational people to believe Trump is racist. Keep believing what you want. It's a free country, but don't expect us to buy your bullsh!t."

Lol, what have I been trying to sell to you? I am skeptical of a claim, your claim. If anything, you are selling me something and I am asking you to prove that it's not BS (or rather, that I'm not buying it).

In the brief clip, Obama blasts his grandmother, calling her a “typical white person” who is fearful of blacks and therefore holds them back.

His comments suggest that Obama believes “typical” white people are out to get blacks, and can’t control their inner racism. In reality, it is Obama who is proven to be the racist one from these comments, not white people.

Imagine if a white politician called someone a “typical black person.” The race-baiters would be all over it, and we would never hear the end of it. However, since Obama was just insulting white people, the mainstream media neglected to report on this story.

Nobody was speaking about Obama or Clinton, just like nobody was speaking of David Duke or the KKK and yet you sought to bring them into the discussion, in the most irrelevant of ways because David Duke and the KKK don't matter, not generally nor in this discussion.

What's more hilarious is that you say it's presumptuous to assume that my adversaries here are already biased (when I did no such thing), and in the very same sentence presume me of being biased. At least try to separate your inconsistencies between a few sentences.

LOL. Sounds to me as if you are in agreement that he is saying a majority. I'm saying show some proof of that? If it isn't the majority of Mexicans which came across the border illegally than the only logical conclusion is that there is racial bias against that group which causes him to perceive the majority in the most negative light possible (which would more fairly be applied to the minority) although the evidence proves the majority does not fit that description.

Yeh OK. Keep telling yourself he isn't a racist. His words are very unkind. They are hurtful to many. They are lies. But, OK. if you want to scream to the heavens it is OK because it doesn't qualify as racism since 'Mexican' isn't a race that's your rationalization. Not mine. It isn't just Mexicans who cross our southern borders illegally. Actually, classifying all immigrants from south of our borders as Mexican kind of qualifies as racism, in my mind. It's like, 'they all look alike'.

Again, when did he classify all immigrants south of the border as Mexican? The quote I gave you specifically alludes to South and Latin American immigrants as well as "probably" Middle Eastern immigrants.

No, he didn't mention the quantity. That's why I said it's a blunt and vague claim.

You want some proof of what? That he didn't say it was a majority? Because he didn't... it's not there in the quote. Generalizations can talk about all, most or a significant proportion of a population. Since he said "some are good people" it's not all, so we're left with either most or a significant proportion.

"If it isn't the majority of Mexicans which came across the border illegally than the only logical conclusion is that there is racial bias against that group"

If what isn't the majority? Can you clarify? If he's not referring to the majority of Mexicans then how can you conclude that there is racial bias?

And are you going to conclude the same for the other countries he mentioned?

I have presented my evidence from a respected journalist source. So, now what? You are tasked to prove this wrong, are you going to make some cryptic excuse for Trump and what was described clearly as discriminatory practices?

Are you going to ask me now, if discriminatory practices by an business under your control and management are evidence of racism?

So, you are going to believe cranks and extremists and give them credibility when the proponderance of evidence points otherwise, yeah, right.....

Credence, I was laughing about your accusations that I'm a "weird science oracle." I was not laughing at you having no evidence of Trump's racism. And yes, I am still laughing about that, because "weird science oracle" makes no sense on several levels.

The article makes it clear that the case was settled out of court. Cases settled out of court are not admissions of guilt nor do they prove guilt. We've already been over this once before when you provided cases of banks all over North America supposedly discriminating against minorities, when they were all out of court settlements.

But I'll indulge you. Let's assume this settlement proves Trump is racist. What are we left with? One example of Trump being racist 43 years ago. I would not call that a "preponderance" of evidence. Ideally I'd want to know what he's saying that's racist today, and ideally more than one example, if he is as openly racist as KKK members burning crosses and wearing bedsheets.

What are you talking about, giving credibility to cranks and extremists? Which cranks and extremists do you think I am giving credibility to? Is it really that extreme to assume that people are not racists when they don't say racist things?

I found this source from the Fortune Magazine, a business publication. I left out sources like the Huffington Post and Alternet so as you will not have the opportunity to make excuses and equivocate further.

So, what do I have to do convince you? Do I have to catch Trump in bed sheets with a pointy hat?

I offer unbiased opinion sources, and what do you give me in return, bulls***, equivocation, and Your Opinion? What do you have to rebut my claim and the sources I provide?

I have attempted to address you question with evidence that is credible, so where is yours?

As an oracle, you sit 'on high' (well, north is on high) just thriving on the debate and process without taking a position because you cannot prove it, or would not bother to try. So, you are invited to come down from your celestial perch and get involved in the rough and tumble of American politics, even if you are a Canadian.

Listening to you, I bet that you hate the young Trudeau as your current prime minister. Maybe, I ought to check Canadian politics and see if I can go in and stir up your pot a bit?

Yes, Donald Trump is considered a racist. And Mother Teresa is considered a saint... doesn't make it true. That's why I'm asking for evidence.

Where have I ever made an excuse about the source you've provided? This is the second or third time you accuse me of such a thing when I've never once complained to you about the source. I'll repeat what I've told you once before:

I am not picky with the origin of the source. The information presented ought to be challenged in the same way regardless of where it comes from.

Read it carefully and remind yourself that Mr P. doesn't care where your source comes from, so stop accusing him of making excuses about the sources, because he's never done that and he's gone out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't care where your source comes from.

Anyway, I guess I'll have to do the "legwork" of outlining the articles claims, since the only thing you're keen on doing is pasting a link and expecting me to go through every single claim:

Claim 1: discrimination by the Trump family business.

We've already been over this. Despite my reservations in assuming settlements to be indications of guilt, I've already agreed to assume this is racist, even though there could be other explanations for disparities (something I've tried to explain to you at length in past threads).

Claim 2: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage."

How is this racist? The statement could be wrong, but is it racist? Would it be racist to say a well-educated white has a tremendous advantage? Or that white people have tremendous advantages in general? We had an entire thread about that, remember? Should I accuse you of racism for supporting that statement? There's a distinction between racial statements and racist statements.

Claim 3: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE"

Is this a reactionary claim to something without evidence? Yes. Is it an accusation against black and Latino teens? Yes. This could be a reaction based on racism, but this could also just be a reaction based on a false sense of justice or fear. Whatever, let's call it racism just because.

Claim 4: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."

Now this would be racist, if it were true. But this quote goes back to a single disgruntled employee who recalled something said months after the fact and put it in quotes. And who tried to profit off of it with a book. How credible are such statements?

Claim 5: "They don’t look like Indians to me and they don’t look like Indians to Indians."

He is referring to the typical Native American look, given their cultural attire and clothing. Was it a dumb, blunt and insensitive statement? Yes. Is it racist to say that Native Americans have a particular look? No. They do, it's very distinct and quite beautiful in my opinion.

Claim 6: Obama is not American.

Another dumb statement. Is it based on race? Yeah, probably. Does it mean he is racist? I'd be more inclined to think he's stupid and conspiratorial as opposed to racist, but I can give you this one.

Claim 7: He called Mexicans rapists.

No, he called a majority or significant proportion of not-best illegal immigrants drug dealers and rapists, and that "some" were good people.

Claim 8: He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration.

Muslims are not a race. The ban would be based on ideology which is largely incompatible with Western principles. And it would be temporary.

Claim 9: He made fun of Chinese businesspeople with broken English.

For crying out loud, does nobody actually look at the context of his statements? First of all, he wasn't talking about only Chinese businessmen, he was talking about Japanese too (should I assume that the author of your link is racist for equating Japanese to Chinese?). Second, it was a compliment! He's saying that Asian businessmen are direct and don't lolly gaggle with small talk. Third, he was quoting the specific businessmen he was negotiating with. If they said "we want deal" in broken English, quoting them verbatim is not racist.

Claim 10: He said “my African American" again and again.

Well, this is definitely racist, it clearly implies that he owns the African American, as if he were a slave. *Sarcasm*.

Claim 11: He called Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican, and that he was biased against him.

Calling into question the bias of someone because of their race is nothing new. You yourself have done this by accusing "old, white men" in the justice system of being racist and corrupt. The difference here is Trump is accusing one specific man of Mexican background of bias, whereas you made a generalization about all or most old white men. If you stated a specific judge was biased because he was white I wouldn't accuse you of being racist against whites, I'd just ask for evidence. Whatever, I'll say this is racist, but then I have to conclude that you are racist yourself (I'd rather think you and Trump are misinformed or ignorant, but oh well).

Claim 12: He did not hire many black or Hispanic executives.

Not having a specific % of a demographic in executive positions is not evidence of racism, discrimination or hatred. He also didn't hire any dwarves, does that mean he hates dwarves?

--------------------------------------

Those are all of the claims I can find in your link. 5/12 are potentially racist. But I'm being generous. A 43 year old settlement, an accusation by a disgruntled employee in a book 25 years ago, and calling for the death sentence and jumping the gun against presumed criminals doesn't prove he is racist.

The other two incidents with Obama's birth certificate and Justice Curiel are potentially more compelling, but I am still hesitant to judge him as a racist against blacks and Mexicans on a whole two events against a whole two individuals. I'm a big fan of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance. And this is more than adequately explained by ignorance.

The rest of the claims are blatant distortions of what Trump said and/or are not racist by any measure. But at least now I understand where you supposedly come from. Now I know that 3 questionable incidents 25-43 years ago, and 2 recent incidents against specific individuals, are enough evidence of a person's racism, in your eyes.

(I mean, I had to substantiate all of your evidence for you and make a number of exceptions in your favour, but that's fine. Like you (erroneously) said, I need to do some legwork for a change, even if it's legwork that you're supposed to be doing.)

Now you keep asking about my evidence. Of what? What do you think I'm claiming here? Being skeptical of your claim does not mean I'm making a claim of my own. Being skeptical of fairies doesn't mean I am definitely stating that fairies don't exist. I've already gone out of my way to substantiate your claims and now you want me to substantiate non-claims? Be reasonable for a change.

Of course, the default position is to assume that Donald Trump is not racist, just like the default assumption is to assume that fairies don't exist. There's no evidence that would "prove" that Trump is not a racist, or that fairies don't exist. The proof is in the absence of evidence to the affirmative claims. If you don't understand the distinction read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Once you understand that, you'll realize that asking for proof of something being absent, or demanding that I take a position when my position is the null/absent default, is silly. I'm beating a dead horse because I've already stated as such, but maybe if I repeat the same thing enough times, with different examples (I've used Bigfoot before, now I'm using fairies), it'll get through to you:

"the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate Trump's racism, not on me to demonstrate his non-racism. How could anyone prove that a person is not a racist? How could anyone prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? The only proof I have is evidence of absence i.e. there's no evidence of Bigfoot, therefore he doesn't exist. But that might just be my "weird" science talking."

So I'll reiterate: how could anyone prove that a person is not a racist? What evidence would you need to see to conclusively state that Trump is not a racist?

As for Trudeau why are you mentioning Trudeau after complaining about my mentioning of Hillary and Obama? He's not even American.

If you must know I would have voted for Trudeau, but I was out of the country visiting family and neglected to vote in advance. I actually made a minor donation to his party and participated in my university's Young Liberals group - it's not much of a contribution, mind you, but still enough to render your silly accusation, well, silly. It just seems that no matter how many times I tell you that I am a liberal, you ignore it, because if I disagree with you I must be a scary rightwinger and I must hate all liberals, including young Canadian prime ministers, because reasons.

If you're having this much trouble understanding that I'm a liberal, then I can't imagine what the shock would be if I were to say that I'm a Latino immigrant from South America, which would make me part of two groups that Donald Trump is supposedly discriminatory against (maybe three if you include liberal).

The National Enquirer has broke some Top Stories, they actually do get their ducks in a row factually. Like any news site they are human and we know that we all can make mistakes. Its always good to research the research.

I am sorry, if I may have added to your paranoia by speaking up when you had linked to Salon, because I truly hate pedophelia and will not credit to a site that promotes it. I rarely use the word "hate" but it is a quality word to use for such as this. You most likely didn't even know the site promoted it, I'm sure you didn't. Please, I hope you understand.

That's why I'm asking for evidence: That is what I have attempted to provide.

Ok, about the source, but as you can see other forum participants do care and want that see that my analyses are unbiased, to the greatest extent possible.

You do great legwork and I cannot wait to dig into the meat of this rebuttal. I wanted you to read the entire article and come to your own conclusions, not wanting to steer you one direction or the other.

Claim 1: discrimination by the Trump family business.--------------------------------------------------- What have we been over, Mr. P? I have no reservation about assuming that settlements are indications of guilt, often times, they are. Trump, if not anything, is stubborn, why settle if he could win? The entire passage of the article speaks of his elaborate process involving how he discriminated against potential renters based on race, in clear defiance Fair Housing Laws. The fact that he is a racist is settled, for claim 1, I have the game point. That fact is not something we are going to allow to be ignored. "Other disparities are just other excuses'

Claim 2: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage."------------------------------------------------------------I will give you this one, while it is a stupid ill-informed comment, the very trademark of Donald Trump, it may not be indicative of racism. But, there was a sentence in that passage that stated that the statistical reality was quite the contrary of Trump's assertion. So, it was a racial statement that is just as inane as Trump. Statistics will prove that white people have prominent advantages in society over non-whites, that is statistical reality. The difference is that Trump is in error. And, that he should have been better informed before he started 'running his mouth'.

Claim 3: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE"-----------------------------------------------------I will give you this one as well, as Trump is an insensitive, vulgar, brutish sort of clown, his attitude during this matter would not surprise me. He might just have a problem with the concept of inner city youth, period. It could be a issue of social class, whatever. There is enough daylight here to give this to you.

Claim 4: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."-----------------------------------------------------Why would it not be true? It is sheer conjecture on your part to say that this employee was lying about the statement. That is more than you can substantiate or support. Also, let's not forget this damning piece of evidence quoted from the article:

"O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.”

So, I guess I don't really care if Trump refers to O'Donnell as a disgruntled employee, what sort of excuse were you expecting?

So, this is my game point!!- he is racist.

Claim 5: "They don’t look like Indians to me and they don’t look like Indians to Indians."

He is referring to the typical Native American look, given their cultural attire and clothing. Was it a dumb, blunt and insensitive statement? Yes. Is it racist to say that Native Americans have a particular look? No. They do, it's very distinct and quite beautiful in my opinion.------------------------------------------------------Trump, who is a sore loser and never plays with an even deck, made these insensitive remarks about Native Americans because their casinos were a threat to his own. It is racist to use that 'particular look' idea to discount the fact that these people were in fact Native Americans with every right to operate a casino as provided by law. What are Native Americans supposed to look like? His defense of his position was based upon racist assumptions of whether these people were Native Americans or not, when it was clearly understood by everyone that they were.

Yes, his comments were dumb, blunt and insensitive statements AND a racist one as well. I will take the point on this one, Thank you.....

Claim 6: Obama is not American.

Another dumb statement. Is it based on race? Yeah, probably. Does it mean he is racist? I'd be more inclined to think he's stupid and conspiratorial as opposed to racist, but I can give you this one.----------------------------------(Racism is the underlying theme behind such a ridiculous statement) Thanks, and I will take this additional point as well.

Claim 7: He called Mexicans rapists.

No, he called a majority or significant proportion of not-best illegal immigrants drug dealers and rapists, and that "some" were good people.------------------------I will give you this one, but I continue to condemn Trump for his ill-advised comments.

Claim 8: He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration.

Muslims are not a race. The ban would be based on ideology which is largely incompatible with Western principles. And it would be temporary.--------------------------------------Bigotry can apply to race, religion or creed. I will not go so far as to say that it is racist, but it is biased and ill-advised. The ban opens the pandora's box to tyranny and tyrants.But, I will, reluctantly, give you this one.

Claim 9: He made fun of Chinese businesspeople with broken English.

For crying out loud, does nobody actually look at the context of his statements? First of all, he wasn't talking about only Chinese businessmen, he was talking about Japanese too (should I assume that the author of your link is racist for equating Japanese to Chinese?). Second, it was a compliment! He's saying that Asian businessmen are direct and don't lolly gaggle with small talk. Third, he was quoting the specific businessmen he was negotiating with. If they said "we want deal" in broken English, quoting them verbatim is not racist.

-----------------------------------------OK, you have made your point, I will give this one to you.

Claim 10: He said “my African American" again and again.

Well, this is definitely racist, it clearly implies that he owns the African American, as if he were a slave. *Sarcasm*.---------------------------------What he did was silly, but I am not assigning 'racism' to it. You have the point....

Claim 11: He called Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican, and that he was biased against him.

Calling into question the bias of someone because of their race is nothing new. You yourself have done this by accusing "old, white men" in the justice system of being racist and corrupt. The difference here is Trump is accusing one specific man of Mexican background of bias, whereas you made a generalization about all or most old white men. If you stated a specific judge was biased because he was white I wouldn't accuse you of being racist against whites, I'd just ask for evidence. Whatever, I'll say this is racist, but then I have to conclude that you are racist yourself (I'd rather think you and Trump are misinformed or ignorant, but oh well).-------------------------------The discrimination that Blacks have experienced in America is not something we are doing to ourselves. The issue here is that Trump wants the man to recuse himself because he was Mexican, and that the judge's insistence that records surrounding Trump University are being opened because of some racial vendetta that the judge has toward Trump, merely because his forebears were from Mexico. (What is it he says? 'But I am going to build a wall') He later comes up with an excuse that the judge is part of a radical Hispanic rights association. But when asked if he would impose the same demand of recusal for a judge of Muslim background he says, Yes. So, I say that it is racist to assume that people entrusted with a solemn responsibility are not going to do their jobs impartially merely because of their surnames and ethnic heritage. So, I am asking Trump for 'evidence'.

That is racist and that is my game point.

Claim 12: He did not hire many black or Hispanic executives.

Not having a specific % of a demographic in executive positions is not evidence of racism, discrimination or hatred. He also didn't hire any dwarves, does that mean he hates dwarves?

--------------------------------------

The accounts in the article clearly show that racist intent was involved, but since I cannot prove it conclusively, I give you the point.

But let me add another:------------------------Claim 13: Trump spent considerable time on the birther issue and had the temerity to ask the President to provide him transcripts of academic records at the prestigious universities that he attended. Just who in the hell does he think that he is? He said that affirmative action was the explanation as to how the President secured admission to these institutions. I regard this as a racist attack. I will take that point. (I will get documentation to support that if you wish)

On the contrary, I am being generous, the man is a racist and for anyone not to see the pattern, it would clearly require that ones' head is in the sand. I give you the benefit of the doubt in the case when your Hanlon's razor could apply. But there are many other cases that clearly fit in the realm of my accusations against Trump.

Racism and racists are always a subjective concept, but with Trump it is time after time, over an over. You continue to make these kinds of statements and they become a part of anyone's perception of you. I say Hitler was a racist and I am prepared to prove it, if you say that the evidence is incorrect then you will need to prove to me why that is. But, perhaps for Joseph Goebbles or Heinrich Himmler, Hitler was not a racist. But, when this matter is judged by most reasonable people objectively, there is only one clear answer, right? Such is the case with Donald J Trump. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a Donald.........

I glad that you approve of the young Prime Minister and I apologize for my forward remarks regarding your loyalties. It is just that anyone that can support Trump in the face of his ill deeds I have a hard time seeing as 'moderate' anything.

I got 6 in favor and 7 against as far as Trump being racist. What other personality running for a major national office would have so much damning evidence pointing against him? Compared to Trump's record on these matters Clinton or Sanders is not even on the scale.

"I have no reservation about assuming that settlements are indications of guilt, often times, they are."

'Often' is not always. There are many settlements which are forced on a defendant because of pressure. Consent decrees like in this case specifically amount to a non-admission of guilt. Anyway, I already said I'm agreeing that this is racism, despite my reservations.

Claim 4:

"It is sheer conjecture on your part to say that this employee was lying about the statement."

The employee's accusations are sheer conjecture. Why are you okay with his conjecture, but not with my conjecture about his conjecture? It could be true, it could be false, we don't know but we should be skeptical of a disgruntled employee's claim.

""O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.” "

Probably true =//= definitively true. Trump didn't read the book or know of the claims. I like how you're believing this quote but not Trump's later quote where he disavows the claim.

"So, I guess I don't really care if Trump refers to O'Donnell as a disgruntled employee, what sort of excuse were you expecting?"

It's not that Trump referred to him as a disgruntled employee, it's that he was a disgruntled employee. He didn't like how Trump referred to one of the managers who passed away in a helicopter crash and was later fired. That would make anyone disgruntled.

Claim 5: Ah, your link didn't give as much context. He was questioning their legitimacy based on appearance. Though I think questioning legitimacy based on appearance is not in itself racist, I can give you this one.

Claim 12: I've already agreed that this is racist for your sake, but asking Trump to provide evidence =//= that he is automatically racist. He might have no evidence, just like there's no evidence that old, white judges are racist. We can assume that he is making this unfounded claim based on race or stupidity.

"So, I say that it is racist to assume that people entrusted with a solemn responsibility are not going to do their jobs impartially merely because of their surnames and ethnic heritage"

Do you remember our white privilege thread? That thread was largely about questioning people's impartiality based on their surnames and ethnic heritage. The difference is that their background was white. You were doing so, as were others. Should I assume that you did so out of racism? Or that you were trying to look for an explanation?

But can you see where I'm coming from? The success ratio of these claims is less than 50%, and that's after we went through each and every one of them with diligence and honesty, and with a good source. Accusations of racism even against someone as questionable as Trump have not been reliable or accurate, and yet we continue to push these buttons of bigotry for every little thing an influential figure says. (And note that only 2 of these claims happened within the last 5 years. Some of the most oft-repeated claims about him are of his racism against Mexicans and Muslims and that he wants to "deport all of them," both of which aren't true.)

I agree that he's more overt with his questionable behaviour than other candidates. But again, less than 50% of the dirt thrown his way are indicative of racism. When that many accusations are inaccurate, I have to remain skeptical.

My suggestion is, instead of shunning him via accusations of racism (not only because it's sketchy, but because it just doesn't work), why don't we just prove him wrong? Why don't we look at the % of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population and see if they're a cause of concern? Why don't we challenge him on providing evidence regarding his accusations against Justice Curiel? Why don't we show Obama's birth certificate?

(oh wait, we did that last one, and Trump did shut up about it - after patting himself on the back for a job well done )

I had to say this to you, why should we tolerate a potential presidential candidate that consistently misrepresent the facts and data?

We already know that the amount of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population do not exceed that of native born. So, why say these things without properly vettiing them before you do?

He has already been challenged to provide evidence to support his claim of bias in the Curiel case, I have yet to see it.

Why should the President of the United States present his birth certificate to Trump because he demands it, what else does he demand to see besides the President's transcrips? Are we to assume that this massive plot to get Obama into office, starting at childhood was not some sort of plot. Or, that, Mr Trump is keen to information that all of the proper authorities have not already determined as to Mr. Obama's eligibility to hold the office that he was seeking.

Why should the president or anyone else have to accomodate this fool and his ridiculous demands?

"I had to say this to you, why should we tolerate a potential presidential candidate that consistently misrepresent the facts and data?"

I never said you have to tolerate him. I'm just asking us (society, as a whole) to be less trigger-happy in accusations of racism, sexism etc. not only against Trump but in general. As I've demonstrated, most are not accurate even against the most questionable of individuals.

"We already know that the amount of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population do not exceed that of native born."

Do we? I haven't looked, I'd be surprised if you have to be honest. BTW, he was talking about illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants, so you'd need to look at that population.

So his quote is wrong regarding rape, but is right regarding drug crime (though it's not undocumented immigrant Mexicans in particular, just undocumented immigrants).

"He has already been challenged to provide evidence to support his claim of bias in the Curiel case, I have yet to see it."

It's obvious he doesn't have any evidence, so he won't provide anything. Thus our pressuring of evidence renders his accusation flat.

"Why should the President of the United States present his birth certificate to Trump because he demands it"

Because it would shut him up and other members of the birther movement, which it did.

"Why should the president or anyone else have to accomodate this fool and his ridiculous demands?"

I wouldn't call proving him wrong an accommodation. Legitimacy is a contestable issue. For instance, George Bush wasn't considered a legitimate president by a significant number of Americans. If there were a way of proving that his victory in Florida was legitimate, we'd ought to demand evidence of it.

The birther movement questioned Obama's legitimacy on dubious grounds. Ideally we ought to not entertain dubious accusations (just like I ought to not entertain accusations about me hating liberal Prime Ministers) but I think judging whether an accusation is dubious or not is sketchy. Either way, there were a large group of people who bought that belief, and it's a belief that's really easy to disprove. The best solution would be putting the birth certificate online. Evidently, Obama and his team agreed with that idea.

You won't get accused of racism and sexism as the foundation of your campaign if you make a point not to practice such things or have a record that support the fact of racism and sexism in your dealings. Speaking about blood running from various female orifices shows disrespect for women and adherence to a level of vulgarity rarely seen in American politics. Am I not free to make a distinction between David Duke and Mitt Romney for example?

We all slip up time and time again, but you reach a point as with everything that a person that is late to work occassionally is not the same as one that is late every day.

"You won't get accused of racism and sexism as the foundation of your campaign if you make a point not to practice such things or have a record that support the fact of racism and sexism in your dealings"

"Speaking about blood running from various female orifices shows disrespect for women and adherence to a level of vulgarity rarely seen in American politics."

Vulgarity is not sexism.

"Am I not free to make a distinction between David Duke and Mitt Romney for example?"

What distinction are you trying to make? Romney was also accused of racism and sexism, so I fail to see your distinction.

"We all slip up time and time again, but you reach a point as with everything that a person that is late to work occassionally is not the same as one that is late every day."

Imagine if you were late once and instead of assuming that you were caught in traffic, had an emergency or just made an honest mistake, we immediately assume that you were lazy and trying to skip work. Do you find that reasonable? Because that's what's happening with most of your GOP candidates. Again, even with the guy that is most blatantly late (Trump), you're less than 50% accurate regarding whether he's being late for innocent reasons or whether he's being late deliberately.

But speaking about blood running from female orifices at a public forum to the insult of a moderator is sexist. You don't need a calculator to figure that 2+2=4.

There is a little difference between people who advocate racist policies openly verses those that appear to be racist based on omission. Trump is closer to the former rather than the latter.

I going to be hard to convince me that your being late 50% of the time is more likely to be justified by innocent reasons. I am going to say that you are habitually late. I am going to be less understanding and sympathetic toward those that continue to make the same slip up every day and continue ask us to say that the explantion is innocent. Such a person would be the one I fire over the person that is occassionally late. Trump is for this example is the habitually late person.

To seriously try to compare race relations and civil rights records of B. Sanders and Donald Trump is just an exercise in equivocation.

"But speaking about blood running from female orifices at a public forum to the insult of a moderator is sexist."

I think it's stupid and unprofessional to joke that a female moderator is treating you harshly because she's on her period, but I don't think it's inherently sexist.

"There is a little difference between people who advocate racist policies openly verses those that appear to be racist based on omission."

I'd say there's very little difference between people who appear to be racist and people who are not racist at all.

"I going to be hard to convince me that your being late 50% of the time is more likely to be justified by innocent reasons"

No, it's not that Trump is late 50% of the time. That would be analogous to saying Trump is racist 50% of the time. You're changing the analogy here.

The real analogy is that more than 50% of the time your accusations about the nature of Trump's late arrivals are wrong. And these accusations go down to 0% regarding people like Bernie Sanders.

"To seriously try to compare race relations and civil rights records of B. Sanders and Donald Trump is just an exercise in equivocation."

You said: "You won't get accused of racism and sexism as the foundation of your campaign if you make a point not to practice such things or have a record that support the fact of racism and sexism in your dealings." Sanders was accused of racism and sexism, despite having a stellar record.

I'm not making an equivocation, I'm demonstrating your point to be false.

So, there is no proof that the employee was disgruntled as disgruntled is a state of mind that does not translate that he vengeful and prone to lie. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

Why would Donald Trump admit to such racist commentary, if he had not read the book. That does not make any sense. What proof is there that he did not read the book and just shook his head in the affirmative like a sock puppet, not knowing what he was commenting on?

Yes, two years later, when you read the article, it said that he was running for office of some sort and this sort of commentary if it got around would certainly have been a downer. Of course, he denied it later.

"So, there is no proof that the employee was disgruntled as disgruntled is a state of mind that does not translate that he vengeful and prone to lie. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise."

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove Donald Trump said what this person accused him of saying...

The book was called "Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall." This doesn't sound vengeful to you? I don't know about you, but it doesn't look like Trump "fell" anywhere, let alone spectacularly.

"Why would Donald Trump admit to such racist commentary, if he had not read the book."

I don't have the full context of the statement, but there's no reason to believe he admitted to racist commentary. He was asked about the book and gave an answer. Here's the closest I can get to context:

In a 1997 interview, Trump said “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” using an expletive to describe his former executive as a loser.

To me, this sounds like he's making fun of the guy for talking about his "spectacular fall" when he never fell to begin with, which is why he called him a loser. Saying it's "probably true" is just mockery.

"What proof is there that he did not read the book and just shook his head in the affirmative like a sock puppet, not knowing what he was commenting on?"

What proof do you have that he read the book, informed himself on it and was honest enough to admit to racism? Does that sound like Trump to you?

It is in the book, who are you to say that the statements are false? If it was full of lies, why did not Trump sue the guy?

You were not there and have no idea as to what transpired, what makes you so sure that it wasn't said, If you say the man that wrote the book is a liar, then you have to prove it. So, why did not Trump just state that the book was a lie in its entirety, he had the opportunity, you know?

So, Trump said that it was 'probably true', why are you adding some sort of question about that. Why not use the expletive and deny the statement?

I can go only with what was said and what Trump acknowledged was said, not some sort of theory as to what was going on that has no basis of support except for your thoughts.

As to the proof that he read the book: Because if was able to comment on the contents of the material in the affirmative, I should be able to assume that he was aware of what he was commenting to. That is more logical than to expect him to intelligently comment on something that he did not read, right?

PS: I'm finding it more and more hilarious that you're expecting Trump to "intelligently comment on something" by research. Chances are he absolutely commented in the affirmative without reading anything about it, because that's all he does. Do you remember the other claims we went through? Justice Coriel, Obama's birth certificate, illegal immigrants being rapists? Was he informed and well-read on those issues? No. Did he make intelligent comments about those things? No. Did that stop him from making affirmative statements? No.

A book that was written by a man who worked with Trump and who was in a position to know said that Trump said X.

Trump himself acknowledged in an interview that he probably said it 'X'

That's good enough for me

Now how else am I supposed to prove that, short of asking him personally? So, if the only way to verify anything is to speak personally to the object, how is realistic is that?

What are books, journalism, etc for? Yes, things can be biased, but if the man is stupid enough to admit to it, then I say that he did it!!

I follow your reasoning on the last paragraph, but still there is no basis for your saying that Trump did not make the racist remarks. He was dumb enough to be ignorant on so much, is it a stretch that he made these racist statements, why when allowing for so much ineptitude are you saying so adamently that he did not make the statements?

- Probably true does not mean that it is true.- Trump later recanted the statement and said it was not true.

Trump made 2 different statements on the subject. Why are you believing the "probably true" statement, as opposed to the "100% not true" statement?

"Now how else am I supposed to prove that, short of asking him personally?"

That's exactly how you prove it. He was asked on two separate occasions. The first time he said "probably true." The second time he denied it altogether. Again, why are you believing one statement and ignoring the other?

Mainstream media has sliced news footage many times before, to Trump and a vast amount of other people who say they took something out of content and edited it in elsewhere.

ADDEDMSM is owned by big corporations, Globalists that heavily donate to Hillary Clinton, lobbyist who meet behind closed doors to make laws with legislators at a 5 Star luxury vacation place with all expenses paid.

But probably means more likely than not. So, you are trying to get us to dismiss 'probably' for less likely, which statistically when you understand the meaning of the word, makes no sense.

Why didn't he simply deny it at the time when he was queried about it? George Wallace later 'recanted' that does not mean that he did not make the racist statement initially. We can all recant anything when it is convenient and your caught with your britches down, that is not good enough, Mr. P.

Yes, I am going to believe the first statement, why not tell the truth the first time? Has it ever occurred to you that the book was in fact the Truth and Trump was angry that so much of his modus operandi was exposed to the public. We assume that the publisher is the bad guy, what is the basis for that?

Then perharps if the only way to establish truth is to ask Abraham Lincoln what was on his mind when he wrote the Emacipation Proclamation.....

"But probably means more likely than not. So, you are trying to get us to dismiss 'probably' for less likely, which statistically when you understand the meaning of the word, makes no sense."

why are you invoking statistics when he's using the word "probably" in a non-statistical fashion? Even if we follow that line of logic, statement 1 is "probably true" so we can assign a +50% chance of it being true. Statement 2 is "definitely not true" so we can assign a 100% chance of it being not true. Statement 2 is 'statistically' the stronger statement. Statement 2 trumps (pardon the pun) statement 1.

The problem is you're using "probably" to mean "100% true." I'm not using probably to mean less likely. I'm saying probably is not equal to 100% true. If you understood propositional logic you wouldn't be making this same type of interpretation error again and again.

If you want to talk about probability then what are the chances that Trump said something:

a) intelligentlyb) informed by researchc) honestlyd) about a person he called an *expletive loser*e) all at the same time?

"Why didn't he simply deny it at the time when he was queried about it?"

As far as I can tell he was queried about the book, not about the specific claim that "black people are lazy." I don't see a full transcript of the interview.

"Yes, I am going to believe the first statement, why not tell the truth the first time?"

I don't think you understand what "probably" means. Probably is a statement of uncertainty. He said it's probably true, indicating that he didn't read the book because he has no certainty about its contents.

Pretend you're a journalist and you're asking Trump whether or not he said "black people are lazy." Do you think he would say "probably" as if he doesn't know whether or not he said it?

So everything you been selling me has been a bucket of BS? What 50 percent probability? That is not what probable means. so what is with your slavish defense of Trump, playing these games and such. You just as well assign yourself to the futile task of washing a turd.

If probably is not 100 percent true, it is damn near close...

I am only interested in what Trump said and what he is reported to have acknowledged, not speculation that for which you have no basis of support.

You keep qualifying Trump's comments from the article, each time you comment. Yes, you are equivocating. You have no basis for applying your hypothesis, qualifying and changing the meaning of Trumps' statement.

Either he said it or he did not say it. He is reported to have probably said it, in his own words. So, what does probably mean, again?

If he recanted, why should I believe that when he lied about the incident in the first place.

This is worse than the Abbott and Costello monologue 'who's on first'.

Credence, you invoked a statistical definition of "probably", remember? Not a common dictionary definition of virtual certainty, a statistical one of probability.

Let's test your knowledge of the concept of what it means to be "probable" with an example: there are 100 balls in a jar. 51 are red, 49 are blue.

Which one is the most probable outcome? Well, I know you know the answer. It's red. It has a 51% chance of being picked whereas blue balls have a 49% chance. Red is probably going to be picked from the jar. If I were to ask you what's ball will be picked from the jar, you'd say "probably red."

Now let's revisit your non-statistical definition of "virtual certainty." Is red virtually certain to be picked from the jar? No. Is 51% "damn near close" to 100%? No.

If you actually had a decent grasp of these concepts you'd know that when you're evaluating a scenario with 2 possible outcomes (like red and blue, or true and false), the most probable outcome is the one with a +50% chance of occurring.

It's actually quite common to use probable or probably in this way. Note the example in your dictionary link: "It's probably going to rain." Weather forecasts are based on probabilistic models... not virtually certain ones.

"I am only interested in what Trump said and what he is reported to have acknowledged"

did you forget what you said earlier? Let me refresh your memory: "I don't care what Trump says"

So which is it? Do you care about what Trump says, or do you not care? Should I ignore your second statement, the way you're ignoring Trump's second statement? Should I assume youre lying about your first statement?

"not speculation that for which you have no basis of support."

We are both speculating, I'm just making a more contextual speculation:

“Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a *expletive* loser. A *expletive* loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me!”

If we read the rest of the quote we see a different picture than the one you're painting: Trump barely met the guy, considers him an incompetent loser and he's shocked that the guy would write a book on him as if he knows him.

So which is it? Is the book probably true, and Trump is amazed that a loser he met two or three times knew so much about him? Or was Trump saying "probably true" in a sarcastic or dismissive way, because he thought the guy who wrote the book was a loser who didn't know anything about him?

I'd love to read the whole Playboy interview in its entirety, but I don't have access to it. And neither do you, unless you have a Highbeam Business account or that '97 Playbook copy.

Note that most people disagree with that video. You can look at the like:dislike ratio or the comments that say that most (if not all) of those statements were not racist... because they're not. Here's a classical liberal (who happens to be black) responding to that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH73eYs … rPreston20

Classical liberals like him or I don't find it fair to make character assassinations - whether it be racist, misogynistic or what have you - based on the offensiveness or bluntness of a person's commentary. These are terrible accusations against a person. They should be levied only if you have a significant amount of evidence at your disposal. And most of the evidence I've seen has been of the level of the MTV video (your article is actually quite good by comparison, so kudos to you for providing it... though typically you're supposed to state the claim and then provide the source, not force your opponent to dig through the source for every claim stated within it).

Trump isn't the only one accused of such things. Sanders and Hillary have been accused of racism and sexism, by media and political groups. These are thinly veiled attempts at character assassination based on phraseology; for instance, Sanders saying Hillary is unqualified was considered sexism. These trigger happy accusations of bigotry indicates a pattern of behaviour that is concerning. Ideally you should have a healthy amount of skepticism for serious accusations, not assume that they're all true because they've been parroted by media and political groups, especially when these accusations boil down to the worst interpretations of statements possible. This comment I stumbled upon highlights one of those particular interpretations, that of generalizations:

Ill-will makes us parse things in the way that says we're good and the other guy's bad. When necessary, we interpret generics or bare plurals perfectly fine. At other times, we assume they're exhaustive because it suits us--it makes a denial stronger, an assertion stronger. Or it makes it very easy to trip up an opponent. But it's still just an interpretation based upon ill-will, amounting to nothing less than confirmation bias.

If you want to further understand where I'm coming from, take a look at false accusations levied against people like Gregory Elliott or Paul Nungesser. They were widely condemned by media, institutions and even government, and yet their accusations turned out to be false. Were you to see these people you'd conclude, as you did above with Trump, that they were "considered" to be guilty of these crimes, and that it is reasonable for you to consider them guilty as well. I am suggesting to you that this standard of consideration is too weak to be meaningful.

Why do I get the feeling that you only jump in to make irrelevant armchair-psychology comments targeting the individual instead of the argument? Are you getting exactly what you wanted? Feeling smug and cocky now?

Yahoo responses have always been nasty in my opinion and I do not consider them to be the canary in the coal mine. Whenever there is an article about Obama doing anything the sheer volume of negative comments are off of the scale. I don't care what Trump says, I am looking at his record, is what he says consistent with has done or is doing? If you say that 'I am the least racist person I know', but you are caught in a major discrimination lawsuit and criminal charges, that statement rings hollow. Trump has deserved the accusations. How many companies has disassociated themselves with him and his businesses? I haven't taken the time to count. But, out of curiosity, I will take the time to check this out. This is unprecedented, have you heard about these kinds of reactions to Clinton or Sanders, or any of the GOP hopefuls for that matter? Then I listen to Bernie Sanders plead with the African American community for support. A man that had been in trenches for 50 years active in addressing the disparities and inequalities of American society since the 1960's. (SNCC) Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. While, I don't have a great deal of problem with Hillary Clinton, she was on Barry Goldwater's team at the time. So, talk is cheap, who is actually walking the talk?

If you want to be my leader, you had better be prepared to 'set the example'.

Thanks for the kudos regarding my article, you are a 'tough nut' to crack and I needed good sources. He has made numerous racist and misogynistic comments not excused by the bluntness or his naturally offensive nature. Who, competing for the highest office of the land would dare utter them in a public forum?

Trumps involvement in racism and sexism is beyond pale and there is no one running today or in the recent past that would dare to have make the kinds of statements that he has. Bernie's record allows us to evaluate the source and while it condemns Trump it absolves Bernie. Outside or rightwing circles, who is serious about Sanders being sexist? I have skepticism about accusations and their validity. But, Trump has shown time and time again that my disparaging view of him is warranted. If 9 out 10 men tell you that you are drunk, then you had better sit down. Trump has been accused by everyone, across the ideological frontier and partisan boundaries, with only the 'cranks' determined to ride it out with him.

But there is a time when 'good and bad' has to be defined for each of us in our own subjective way. There are plenty in this forum that thinks that Trump walks on water. If I hear a lot of disparity from a variety of sources and I see for myself, I going to tend to come to certain conclusions.

I am not familiar with the case of Gregory Elliot or Paul Nungesser. But, I am prepared to give them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt, listening to both sides of the cases and the merits of each argument before coming to a conclusion. I have done the same with Trump and my conclusion is definitely Negative....

"Yahoo responses have always been nasty in my opinion and I do not consider them to be the canary in the coal mine."

You can compare the responses in this video to responses in their other videos and see whether all responses to this topic are negative, or just watch the video and see whether their claims are silly. Saying "I'm the least racist person I know" is not racism...it might ring hollow, but it's not racism.

"This is unprecedented, have you heard about these kinds of reactions to Clinton or Sanders, or any of the GOP hopefuls for that matter?"

Yes, I have. I've mentioned that both Clinton and Sanders have been accused of racism and sexism. Arguably most GOP candidates have been accused of some form of bigotry or another. The accusations were not to the scale of Trump's (naturally) but they were largely unfounded.

"Outside or rightwing circles, who is serious about Sanders being sexist?"

Actually, I've only seen this being spouted by left-wing media and Hillary supporters...

All candidates have a contention or two, but with Trump? Why do you say the scale of Trump's (naturally) are greater, with the emphasis on naturally? Why naturally? The problem is that the accusations against him are well beyond the scale of the others. Small scale items are easily dismissed, but larger scale both in breath and depth are going to prove more difficult.

Yes, if a single accusation of racism or sexism can tarnish a person for a life time, what do you think going to happen to the person of accused of many incidents of racism or sexism. Don't you think that this person is in more trouble.

If Trump made the disparaging comment about Blacks relative to Jews and I am certain that he did, then he is a racist. The amount of years ago and such matters does not dismiss it, as the continued controversy surrounding his behavior and statements show that the leopard has not changed his spots.

No such man will ever get my vote for President, period. I will pass that on to all those that will listen.

Did you read the article? Tim Hunt made a self-deprecating joke about himself and it was perceived to be sexist against women. As a result, he got fired and excommunicated from scientific institutions. Do you find it fair that he got "in trouble" on a single accusation that was repeated enough times? And what's more, an accusation based on a joke?

It is indicative of a problem in our societal discourses where our main objective is to try and get the person "in trouble" over what they said, or how they said it. If you want to understand why Trump is winning you need to look at cases like Tim Hunt's. They show why these accusations are so powerful yet have so little credibility. People are tired of them, and it's why Trump is succeeding.

With all the evidence and many women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse, harassment, and rape. And, Hillary accused of bullying the women and smearing their good names to shut them up, ... I wonder why you are not on that like flies on rice.

I have a whole thread about those issues. "The Clinton's War On Women" is a best seller with documented evidence of guilt. Bill even settled with $850,000 to keep a case out of court. It just goes on and on... Seriously!

ADDED:I also have a thread with factual evidence of Bill and Hillary being racists.

There is no "large body of behavior and statements" as evidence that shows he could be considered a racist. Just the fact that the same propaganda is spread and exaggerated beyond recognition of what Trump's statements were, does not come close to guilt. What it does prove is the distortions made by less than honest people that oppose Trump.

I think the article that I linked has a lot of damning evidence about Donald Trump and racism. Many of the outrages comes from his own troublesome tongue.

I am trying to get Mr. P. to take a look and accept the futility of not seeing the large body of behavior and statements for what they are, conducive of a pattern allowing for a conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, based on the evidence.

But maybe the 'prescient one' can share with us some of that keen insight of his.

But, he knows that I promised him that he would eat crow, and it is checkmate, this time.

did you forget to take your medication or something? You promised that I'd eat crow about Mateen's attack being evidence of Islamic terrorism, not about Trump's racism.

Do you remember your claims? "I still think that all this Islamic terrorism stuff is just a hoax to save the conservative's face on the issue of homophobia which they work hard to conceal." Your ridiculous claim is that this registered Democrat used Islam as a cover for conservatives' homophobia.

as to the Islamic issue, my point and only point is everyone is to be treated equally under the law regardless of some predilection that everyone seems to assign to practicers of the Muslim faith.

Why don't you do your research? I have given you the 'evidence' that you say has been absent from my side of the debate. You have been privileged to review the correspondence of many thoughtful posters trying to show you what is clear to most everybody, except you and Rush Limbaugh. So, O Prescient One, where is your rebuttal?

Unfortunately, you've only given me a link, and not the specific claims within that link, so I have to go through the link and list every claim that's in there. You know, doing the "legwork" that you've accused me of not doing.

Edit: oh, and everyone is treated equally under the law. Nobody is saying to do otherwise, you're again attacking things that aren't there.

Mr. Popo, I'm so glad you have patiently taken your time on this thread to try to address issues that others have. I honestly don't see the issue at all. Your input is always appreciated and I respect how forthright you are.

My position is very simple, it's called skepticism. That's why I invoke Hanlon's razor, or giving people the benefit of the doubt, or even demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. I'm just skeptical of serious allegations against individuals, especially when they're done on dubious grounds. It's not a healthy state of affairs when most, if not all, of your presidential candidates have been accused of racism and sexism by political groups or media.

It should be a mortifying thing to be called a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, yet it's a practice that some political elements (particularly of the regressive left) routinely engage in as their go-to strategy for disagreements. Just here at Hubpages I've been accused of being both racist and sexist simply for being skeptical about a position, or for trying to offer an alternative explanation. And yet people are okay with these accusations, as if it's perfectly reasonable discourse to assume that people who disagree with you or who make questionable statements are doing so out of ill-intent.

I quite like Dave Rubin's quote on the issue: "People who throw out bigot, racist, homophobe and sexist like it's candy suddenly don't like labels now that #RegressiveLeft is sticking." (if you don't know who he is, you might like him. He's done segments with PJW and Milo Yiannopoulos and other 'dissidents' in his show, the Rubin Report. His guests are usually top notch.)

I love listening to Milo, the guy is so darn smart. I hadn't heard of Rubin, but I will pay him some attention, I love a good comedian with great material. I read just a bit of his humor. Thank you for the tip.

CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin narrated a segment Friday detailing various donations the Clinton Foundation had accepted from foreign governments prior to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, but he completely botched the repeatedly proven fact that the Clinton Foundation has failed to reveal the identities of over 1,000 foreign donors.

Part of Griffin’s report featured Trump saying in a speech earlier this week that “Maybe the motivation lies among the 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.”

Griffin then falsely asserts that “There’s no evidence that is accurate.”

But in fact, last April, the Washington Post and Bloomberg News both reported that 1,100 hidden Clinton Foundation foreign donors were “bundled” into a $25 million donation from Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.

Trump certainly has captured the imaginations of people one way or another. He isn't politically correct and he doesn't care who he offends. He is busting that PC crap apart and people feel safer to exercise their free speech and have debates about if Trump is racist or not. Really, that doesn't matter, because this isn't about Trump and he knows it. Race baiting is the new orange, compliments to the present polarizing administration.

Trump is SINKING....FAST. Since Hillary has been cleared of ALL wrongdoing, her political & ethical credibility has increased. She is BEING GROOMED by the POWERS THAT BE to be the next President of the United States.

Bernie is the one who sunk fast. Comey didn't clear Hillary of federal violations, he reported all of her violations, and added who is going to prosecute her for those charges. There have been many political higher-ups prosecuted for much less felony charges and imprisoned. Comey is full of BS.

This is a GREAT day for Trump, he has much more fire power on Hillary after Comey reported her violations of federal laws. You might like to listen to his speech in North Carolina today. I certainly felt a lot lighter after listening to him. The Apocalypse between Hillary and Trump is about to begin.

Now, the discredited Rev. Jess Jackson comes out saying Donald Trump is to blame for the attack on police officers in Dallas, TX. He is still an evil race baiter and just as hateful as ever. Oh yeah, he is on the Top 10 Racist/Race Baiters List in America. Time to put him in a STRAIGHT-JACKET?

The credible evidence that IS A MATTER OF RECORD, suggests that Donald Trump is the exact opposite of what the Democrats, the MSM and his detractors accuse him of when they say he is racist, anti semantic and a misogynist! I continue to see comments from people calling Trump those things, but I have seen no credible evidence to support it... For no one sources the information! Facts outweigh unproven accusations with me!

On the other hand, FBI Director, James Comey laid out the facts of the criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton factually as incriminating evidence of lying repeatedly under oath and compromising top secret, classified information by being excessively careless with the sensitive data on unsecured private servers. The law is clear, and he even made the case and mentioned that any other person would be prosecuted, but he unconstitutionally changed the law in what appears to be a politicized decision saying he could prove no ill intent? There's no intent when a drunk driver slams into another car and kills someone either, but he will be charged at the least with DUI ... and most likely manslaughter! Point being ... look at the facts... Ignore the spin... Misogynist? Even Trumps ex-wives agree he would make a great President... so where is the factual evidence? There is none! Vote Trump for the best chance to make America great again!

No. That is not how I am. I don't know why you like to judge me in a demeaning way. God is real to me.

Noff was a gay rights activist, I understand why you would prefer a religious minister over a born-again Spirit filled man of God. I really do, and I will not condemn you for it. An atheist living a homosexual life-style would, not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, John. You have a free will.

I'm going to interject here. I'd say you may both know God. People tend to be selfish with the spirit, attempting to horde it all in hopes of denying it to others. I suppose we all need to feel special.

God is infinite and we finite beings see only a small bit of who he is and our needs determine what portion we focus on. I found Johnny's quote to be deep and profound. I tend to roll my eyes at the 'spirit filled' gyrations of these new fangled ministers which appear to be so popular these days. This doesn't make either bad, or wrong.

I tend to agree with you that John may know God, or at least He has been working in his life for a long time even if he does not believe there is a God. We are all special and we are all God's children.

The Scriptures say that God reigns on the righteous and the un-righteous. I believe that. And, there is nothing "new fangled" about "spirit filled" ministries, not since the days of Acts. We all see in part and know in part, some see and know more than others about the things of God as He allows, and that's Scriptural. A Christian starts out as a baby-Christian, and no one ever arrives at the fullness of what God has for them, not in this life that I know of.

There is a big difference between a religion and a Spirit filled ministry. You can go ahead and roll your eyes all you want if that's how you want to be. Makes no difference to me, but....

Yes, thank you. I will roll my eyes at those with absolutely no formal education at any accredited seminary dancing and sweating and 'praising de lord'. Most of those types I've met make it very clear what their lord is.

I know people who went to accredited seminary colleges and they realized that they were in a cemetery with foredrawn Christian conclusions. Its kind of like stamping people in a religious mold in an assembly line. That's what you like. Hey, I have no problem with that, but its not for me, I don't want religion.

I like the way Pastor Darrell Scott rolls and would be surprised if he had a religious bone in his body.

I'm afraid I have little use for those who want to lead with no formal training under their belt and I do see where these uneducated 'pastors' develop a following with people who honestly have no idea who Jesus was or what he stood for. Everyone gets to believe as they feel fit to and claim it's because they are full of spirit. I do think they are full of something; just not that.

And I don't think these holy roller preachers have a spiritual bone in their bodies. They are in it for the money. It appears to be a lucrative business. I can't say I am happy for them because they are leading too many astray.

Ok Susie, I accept your assessment of yourself - you said "That is not the way I am." Ok. You be your own judge. Period.

Now, how on earth did you get the impression that "Noff was a gay activist?!" I gave no indication of that. All the websites which mention him would not, and never did give that impression. Because he was not. Period.

Yet, even if he had been, that would not have been an impediment to him. (Except in the weight of mill stones others might wish to pile around his neck). Let me describe the circumstances in which I first came across his church, The Wayside Chapel, in Kings Cross, Sydney, Australia.

I was a lonely, closeted, searching individual, about 37 years old. Sydney was and is a huge, busy city, very unnerving for a stranger entering it for the first time. I was strolling around the Kings Cross, a lively and bustling neighourhood during the evening, a weekday evening as I recall. Nothing special about the day. Nothing special to do. Alone. I came across this place called the Chapel, stopped to inquire, walked inside. I was greeted by people, ordinary people. Older motherly women, older fatherly men, young hippy people, friendly people. And I thought to my self, "What would these people ever know about gay people or drug addicts or criminals?" (I was in only one of those categories, but at the time afraid to admit it !!)

Well, my question was returned to me in numerous ways, finding the answer: "Even if they can't know everything, they know a darn sight more about it than I do!" If you could ever have had the real-life demonstration of a Jesus in The Kings Cross, it was there at the Wayside Chapel.

I was coming from a very negative view of "The Church" as I had found it in the early part of my life. That was something I had felt a part of for so long. When you walk away from what you regard as Home, that is a very frightening and somewhat dangerous thing to do. I walk away from "The Church." Then Ted Noffs and his big Family in that Chapel welcomed me. As it subsequently happened I continued walking, because life had other paths for me to find and discover, but it was the starting point for me to understand the counterfeit nature of man-made notions of "god" and sin.

The real "sin" is putting up a barrier to separate people into "good" and "bad" and "not so good" and "undesirable" and "to be avoided." Making the judgements without sufficient first-hand evidence and out of ignorance. Thereby condemning individuals to a lonely, distraught, pathetic, meaningless existence.

This is a "sin" we are all guilty of to some degree. Each to their own personal realisation. The "salvation" from that is to open the Inner Eye, delve deeply, face fact, deal with it, come out smiling -- knowing that "I am at one with my fellow humans," and I belong. If that is not the message your Jesus is supposed to have sent down the years, then I don't know any other of importance.

We don't all need to wear the same clothing, say the same nice things, do the same activities, believe the same things.

Reality is the diversity and tapestry of life. It's beautiful if we clean our spectacles once in a while.

"Movement, Knowledge, Emotion: Gay Activism and HIV/AIDS in Australia" by Jennifer Power. Australia is where you live I believe, John.

Rupert Noffs, is Ted's grandson and is carrying on his grandfathers work for the LGBT community and an activist for their rights and the care they need because of sexually transmitted diseases. Ted Noff was very much a voice. I suggest you do more research, because Ted had a unique hands on ministry and a different walk with the Lord. Those are things I like to look at.

I read that too...LOL. SUPT. H. BURNETT is a very outspoken religious blogger. Letter of the law crap! "Christians should CONTINUE to preach against the sin of homosexuality", well I suppose he may be right there. I'm glad I'm not a preacher or in his sights.

My best friends group on Facebook went to Trump's and Hillary's pages to see how many of our friends liked their pages. All of us have way more friends that liked Donald's, and very few who liked Hillary's. That was kind of a fun exercise.

My best friends group on Facebook is made up of affiliate marketers, most of us have never met. We've been long-time trusted online friends. So its not like that as you say. I wasn't going for the profound, just mentioned it because it was a fun exercise.

Bigotry, the intolerance, fear, and hatred of those different from ourselves is still a far too common occurrence in the world today. Bigotry is almost universally considered wrong because it robs others of their rights as human beings through discrimination and persecution.

Related Discussions

Okay, Trump supporters, this report from Buzzfeed, if true, would appear to be the end of the Trump presidency.Buzzfeed is reporting that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Tower Trump project and wanted to go to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin personally to...

"In an annual terrorism report published in July 2017, the State Department reported that there was "no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States."https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics …...

August 21, 2018, an extremely dark, surreal and shocking day which will go down in infamy, the day Donald Trump’s manufactured world of monumental lies and deception began to crumble into the dirt like a sand castle melting at high tide: According to media reports, Michael Cohen under oath...

Has he done more than Jesus Christ?Has he done more than Paul?Whom does he compare with?He said"Well they're going to show up for me because nobody's done more for Christians or evangelicals or frankly religion than I have. You've seen all the things that we've passed including the Johnson...

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)